R
RobHom
Guest
MDK… WELL SAID!!
- Status
M
MDK
Guest
I hope you have a change of heart, and make a better decision before it’s too late. Your lack of regret now, may end up being an eternity of misery and regret.I come to religious boards because I find religion the most interesting of the philosophies. When people talk politics, they seldom talk about core beliefs. When people talk religion, they spill all of their beliefs right out there. Just visit fundamentalist Christian boards or the religious section of secular boards or Buddhist forums or Hindu forums and you will see what I mean. More than party or policy or politics, religious belief shapes our minds and our minds are shaped by religion.
As for looking for something, it is information about my fellow humans and their beliefs. I have found my spiritual path and my only regret is that I had not found it years ago. I wish you the peace, joy and equanimity in the pursuit of your path as I have found in mine.
J
jmcrae
Guest
Well - if the Orthodox churches (there are several of them; not just one) ever come together into one, and then re-join with the Catholic Church (which wouldn’t actually be all that difficult, since in our case, we mostly believe all the same things - it’s much more of a structural division than a theological division, and as I have pointed out before, the Orthodox refrain from calling Councils because they understand that only the Bishop of Rome, and only because he is the successor of Peter, has the authority to call a Council) we would then be one Church, fully heir to the Apostolic legacy.
Today, the Apostolic legacy is divided, but the Early Fathers told us, “When the Apostles disagree,” (and that seems to describe the present era) “you must follow Peter” - so, that’s what I’m doing. (from a homily on Pentecost by St. John Chrisostom, The Sunday Sermons of the Early Fathers, Igntius Press.)
M
MDK
Guest
This is a key to knowing the true Church. The Latin phrase, “Ubi Petrus, Ibi Ecclesia” has also distilled truths into a helpful phrase. Many will know it means where Peter is, there is the Church.
One tends to use their understanding of common meaning of words to seek to understand Scripture. Why not use proper context of Scriptures found in writings of those who understand Oral and Written Tradition, which can help another understand Written Tradition?
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
M
mozart-250
Guest
Of course I just got done browsing the “Why doesn’t Rome give up her heresies thread”.at the top of the page.
You do know that the Orthodox disagree with you, correct? You are the ones that are (at best) “schismatic”, not them.
Now, let’s say I predetermined that one of you was the church of Jesus Christ and one of you wasn’t. I sure couldn’t figure out which was which from reading that thread.
That is the nuts and bolts of my observation of the disconnect of God creating a church that through the start-to-the-end-of-time consists of one and only one “ecclesiastical organization” (being nice and not using the bad word den$*#!&%). If that is in fact what God did, He sure made it difficult for a schmuck like me to figure out just what that “ecclesiastical organization” is.
J
jmcrae
Guest
You start with Christ, follow through Peter (Matthew 16:18-19, John 21:15-19), you trace the line, and you end up with Pope Benedict XVI.Of course I just got done browsing the “Why doesn’t Rome give up her heresies thread”.at the top of the page.
You do know that the Orthodox disagree with you, correct? You are the ones that are (at best) “schismatic”, not them.
Now, let’s say I predetermined that one of you was the church of Jesus Christ and one of you wasn’t. I sure couldn’t figure out which was which from reading that thread.
That is the nuts and bolts of my observation of the disconnect of God creating a church that through the start-to-the-end-of-time consists of one and only one “ecclesiastical organization” (being nice and not using the bad word den$*#!&%). If that is in fact what God did, He sure made it difficult for a schmuck like me to figure out just what that “ecclesiastical organization” is.
Nothing could be simpler.
M
mercygate
Guest
For me, taking jmcrae’s counsel and starting with Christ, when all the uproar starts with the Great Schism, I am left with: Not without Peter. Of course, this presumes that you have come to understand Christ’s Church to be Apostolic in origin and to have Apostolic Orders, Sacraments and doctrine.Of course I just got done browsing the “Why doesn’t Rome give up her heresies thread”.at the top of the page.
You do know that the Orthodox disagree with you, correct? You are the ones that are (at best) “schismatic”, not them.
Now, let’s say I predetermined that one of you was the church of Jesus Christ and one of you wasn’t. I sure couldn’t figure out which was which from reading that thread.
That is the nuts and bolts of my observation of the disconnect of God creating a church that through the start-to-the-end-of-time consists of one and only one “ecclesiastical organization” (being nice and not using the bad word den$*#!&%). If that is in fact what God did, He sure made it difficult for a schmuck like me to figure out just what that “ecclesiastical organization” is.
J
jmcrae
Guest
Yes, because the house must be built upon the Rock (Peter).
Which you can easily do, simply by believing that everything in the New Testament is, in fact, true.
M
mercygate
Guest
Also, “Not without Peter” does not boil down to “Peter alone” – even though that would be theoretically possible. The schism was not the Orthodox world versus the Bishop of Rome. “Peter” did not stand alone.
M
mozart-250
Guest
Well somehow the Orthodox don’t end up there.You start with Christ, follow through Peter (Matthew 16:18-19, John 21:15-19), you trace the line, and you end up with Pope Benedict XVI.
Nothing could be simpler.
J
jmcrae
Guest
Well, they don’t start with Jesus and Peter. They start somewhere else - with one of the other Apostles - their line is Apostolic, but it is not Petrine. St. John Chrystostom (who was Greek) preached in his Pentecost homily that the meaning of the Church is, unity with Peter.
M
mozart-250
Guest
Well obviously I don’t know enough about Orthodoxy to go down this path much more. But from a distance it is very confusing.
But I think I am the exception to the rule to investigate things to the extent that I do.
The average Joe Christian at best knows zilch about everything we discussed here. The average Joe Christian will choose a church (at best) based on how much of Jesus they see reflected in that church.
Which brings me to another observation of a disconnect on these same lines. If it were very easy to see Jesus in one organization as opposed to very difficult to see Jesus in the remaining organizations, then it would be kinda easy to figure out that maybe the first organization would be the one you should hook up with.
I can’t say in all honesty say that I see Jesus in your organization any more than I see Jesus in mine. Sorry.
M
MDK
Guest
Of course I know the Orthodox disagree. I also know the history of it, so I am comfortable saying what I say.Of course I just got done browsing the “Why doesn’t Rome give up her heresies thread”.at the top of the page.
You do know that the Orthodox disagree with you, correct? You are the ones that are (at best) “schismatic”, not them.
Now, let’s say I predetermined that one of you was the church of Jesus Christ and one of you wasn’t. I sure couldn’t figure out which was which from reading that thread.
That is the nuts and bolts of my observation of the disconnect of God creating a church that through the start-to-the-end-of-time consists of one and only one “ecclesiastical organization” (being nice and not using the bad word den$*#!&%). If that is in fact what God did, He sure made it difficult for a schmuck like me to figure out just what that “ecclesiastical organization” is.
I checked out that thread… guess you agree with the angry Christy? It’s really a joke, and they have their own take on it, departed from reality. I have a Greek Orthodox friend who thought the same thing as you claim and Christy claim, until he and I had a discussion. I’m not going to try to sell you the Golden Gate Bridge, because I don’t do that kind of stuff, but please watch out for those who do that!
I did get a good chuckle out of your ridiculous statement that the Latin Rite Church is schismatic. If you really hold to this, and other things I’ve seen you’re starting to really lose credibility. The Latin Rite Church is the one who held strong and corrected heresies in the Eastern Church. They didn’t like that, though. It is also the home of the rock established by Christ. That’s why I asked you to start with Christ and what He did. Did you read post 100?
M
mercygate
Guest
While we can never dismiss the affective piece of our convictions, as a day-to-day principle it is pretty unreliable.
I “see Jesus” pretty good in JP-2, Mother Theresa, Therese of Lisieux. But I also “see Jesus” in Dieterich Bonhoeffer and Corrie ten Boom.
M
mozart-250
Guest
Well there you go. Me too. And here is the difference.
Imagine we are back at 150AD. I am sure that I would have seen Jesus in the one Catholic church of that time. I highly doubt whether I would have seen Jesus in the gnostics and other weirdos of the time.
If we are all the great heretics you all say we are, I just would be just unable to explain Dieterich Bonhoeffer and Corrie ten Boom.
M
MDK
Guest
How is this a mystery to anyone who seeks the truth? Jesus established His Church on the rock of Peter. Where is the successor to Peter in the Orthodox Church? I don’t see one. One might try looking in Rome… Benedict XVI.
M
MDK
Guest
One doesn’t have to be 100% wrong to be a heretic.
- Status